Talk:Madelyne Pryor

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Completed - as was already flagged, the article needs more references. (Emperor (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

If you wantto know who to thank, I'm the man. I'll always love you, Maddie... Es-won (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Main image

The main image was changed [1] and there have been number of reverts so this needs to be thrashed out. I have restored the version that has been stable for a while and people can discuss which they'd prefer. (Emperor (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

I think it is a no-brainer: the (current) picture of Madelyne Pryor as she was drawn by her original artist and reminiscent of much of her appearances in her "classic run" (if there is such a thing, poor Maddie)... or a picture from a stint in the 90s I doubt many people read, much less remembered. Sorry, anonymous X-Man/Roger Cruz fan. Es-won (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how Maddie is iconically represented as wearing black leather, I think the Cruz image is a MUCH better fit than some generic pic of Madelyne in her civvies. It doesn't matter if the fans 'remember' the series the pci was taken from, the Cruz pic shows Madelyne as most people know her. In fact a Pic of Madelyne as the Goblin Queen would be better as that was her primary identity, but the Cruz pic is a better choice than some pic of a redhead in a parka. 66.56.152.181 (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If the case is for a photo of Madelyne in her Goblin Queen phase, I agree there is good reason as Inferno was memorable and seemingly the basis for her apparent return (i.e. X-Infernus)... but in that case a picture from that period, by Marc Silvestri for example, would be appropriate. The Cruz pic? No. Es-won (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the point made by 66.56.152.181 here about "a better choice than some pic of a redhead in a parka", and sensing the futility in a back-and-forth revision/undo war with anonymous parties, I have taken the initiative of uploading an appropriate image of Maddy as the Goblin Queen by X-Men OG Marc Silvestri. Seeing as the alternative was not only from an issue of X-Man and drawn by Roger Cruz but a picture of an imposter, I feel this is a fair compromise, no? Es-won (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

>>>I GUESS NOT. The Silvestri-Goblin Queen replacement pic was - along with a whole gang of changes - uncerimoniously undid by some dude claiming consensus. Well let's get some, okay? The options:
1) Image:Madelyne.PNG O.G. Madelyne as drawn by Paul Smith (her debut appearance - highly appropriate, albeit "some pic of a redhead in a parka")
2) Image:MadelynePryor-GoblinQueen.jpg Goblin Queen Madelyne as drawn by then X-Men artist Marc Silvest (her most famous incarnation, as drawn by the look's original artist)
3) or that horrendous Roger Cruz pic, which i disagree with with all my heart and soul (a drawing of "a character claiming to be Madelyne Pryor and later revealed to be an impostor, in a storyline no one can understand, much less remember"). VOTE OR DIE. Es-won (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the Goblin Queen by Silvestri. I had thought about uploading the cover to X-MEN: THE END - DREAMERS AND DEMONS #5 with Madelyne in Goblin Queen costume, but wasn't sure that would count as it techincally is an alternate reality Maddie. But the Silvestri one is good. Justiceofthewar (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion (ok?), but I always find Marc Silvestri's artwork unimpressive. The best I've ever considered about Silvestri's art is that it is a few notches higher in quality compared to John Romita Jr.'s. Even Roger Cruz's art seems a big step up compared to Silvestri's (sorry!).Machine Patience (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay but Silvestri drew the first appearance of the Goblyn Queen - he created the look - for the flagship title no less. Roger Cruz, regardless of artistic merit, drew a character claiming to be Madelyne Pryor and later revealed to be an impostor, in a storyline no one can understand, much less remember. Roger Cruz should not be a consideration for the main picture. Es-won (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add: my preference for the main image is the one by Paul Smith. Actually glad to find the Cruz image removed, but just don't enjoy finding the Silvestri image added either. So, don't worry; Double-6 ain't getting my vote. No way, no how, nix, nil, nein. Machine Patience (talk)

My problem with the smith image is that (while Paul Smith is a great artist) it isn't an iconic image of Madelyne..it seems generic and plain for a character with Maddie's importance, this is an article about a superhero/villain..she should be in one of her costumes. I love Silverstri's artwork (and Cruz's too btw)..but perhaps we could use the cover to Uncanny X-Men 505 with Madelynes new costume design by Greg Land
Image:MadelyneSoM.jpg Justiceofthewar (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about an iconic image of Pryor. I also see the merit of having an early appearance of her. Therefore I feel the best choice is the SIlvestri picture, or something similar from the Inferno. That storyline was a classic, and the basis for the character's continued popularity. Whether her current return will be so long-lasting (like her usage in the 90s which has largely been forgotten) remains to be seen. Es-won (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I had to revert as some anonymous person added the MadelyneSoM.jpg picture. I do not want to be difficult, but with the fickle world that is the comics industry I feel in order for this Wiki entry to be its best whe shouold choose a picture that bests reflects the history of the character. Flavour of the Month Greg Land is not appropriatte. Es-won (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just keep in mind, all, that it's too soon to be using pictures from an upcoming issue not released yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machine Patience (talk • contribs) 18:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But she has already appeared in that costume..so it isn't like I'm realeasing a spoiler os something. Everybody's pic is up no..and I made the land pic the primary because it has all of maddie's aspects..the Goblins (Goblyn Queen), the hellfire club cosyume (Black Rook) and the short hair (original apearrance) plus Greg Land art was used for the Jean Grey page..so shouldn't his art be used for her evil twin? 98.21.117.61 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So now we have 4 images to chose from? I think this last one is a bad idea - general Project image policy is to go for a classic look and something from a cover of a comic that has yet to be published (and potentially most troubling, of a character we don't know is actually is the main Madelyne Pryor, and given fact Jean Grey pretended to be her and there is the potential for this to be an alternate version. So we should avoid this from this angle too) is a very bad idea and shouldn't even be included in the article until we have it confirmed who she is.

Of the ones on offer I suspect the Goblin Queen image ticks the most boxes. (Emperor (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Problems with Image:MadelyneSoM.jpg:

1. The sourcing in the FUR of the image is problematic, at best. Especially given this from Marvel's site.
2. It skirts WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't quite skirt WP:OR - that is unless a sourced interview can be provided that confirms that's Madelyne. If there isn't one, it gets to wait until after the issue ships and confirms that "Yes, it wasn't a bait-n-switch."
3. As pointed out, the general guidelines are to use an iconic image of the character, not "...and today version is.... to be change when we have an image of tomorrows."

Frankly adding "MadelyneSoM.jpg" to the article can wait a month, if it is indeed used with Uncanny X-Men #505 and if it doesn't turn out to be another red head created simply to play with Cyclops' mind. And it can definitely wait to be used as the infobox image until it becomes the "iconic" version of the character.

And one last though on the "iconic" look of the character... I'm tempted to say there isn't just one. Both the pre- and post-"Inferno" looks have about equal weight. If that were the only sticking point, I'd be tempted to say remove the image from the infobox entirely and use them as spot images in the article. There is something else to consider though - the article's title. Since this is "Madelyne Pryor" not "Goblin Queen", the Goblin Queen image isn't really preferable.

- J Greb (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thsnk you Emperor and J Greb. I agree with what you're saying, and you make a good point I had not considered regarding the article's true subject. This Greg Land art offends me deeply and even hurts me a little - no offense, Justiceofthewar - but I refrained from any reverts until some semblance of consensus was reached. Es-won (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken Es-Won..everbody likes different art..I really like the Goblin Queen by Silvestri..and I know it isn't popular..but the cruz version of Maddie is good too. I know that given MAdelyne's complicated history..and the retcons and rewrites it will be hard to pic an image that all parties would consider iconic. I think an image of Madelyne as Goblin Queen would be the best idea since that was her best known persona (just like Jean is best recognized as Phoenix in my opinion). Personally I am really enjoying this discussion. Justiceofthewar (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to the problems with the current (Greg Land-illustrated) picture outlined by Emperor and J Greb, I plan on changing the profile picture to one from the Inferno crossover - a series of issues that saw Madelyne turn into the the villainous Goblin Queen, an incarnation the character is best known as. While I understand and partly agree with J Greb's point concerning the article's true subject ("this is "Madelyne Pryor" not "Goblin Queen""), I contest that the 'Goblin Queen' is simply an aspect or persona of the same character, and not only that, but an aspect for which the character is best known, even moreso than Justice's example of Jean Grey as Phoenix. ... As for the complaints over Marc Silvestri - which for the life of me I can't understand. I myself wasn't too crazy for his New X-Men arc, but his work on X-Men, along with Rick Leonardi and later Jim Lee, were the artistic high points on book in the late 80s, IMO.... anyway. as for the complaints over Marc Silvestri, I guess a picture from X-Factor will have to do. I mean, who doesn't like Walt Simonson? Es-won (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with the Goblin Queen image myself.

I understand the objections but it is just an alias she has used and one of her highest profile outings - a picture of her as the Goblin Queen is still an image of Madelyne Pryor. The equivalent might be the use of the Yellowjacket image at Henry Pym, as an image just of Pym wouldn't be that useful (although I'd personally prefer an image of him as Ant Man, but it'd still illustrate the same point)

My two cents: The Land image is just atrociously poor art. If we're agreeing to depict Madelyne in her Goblyn Queen incarnation, then it should be Silvestri's classic version, not Land's weak recapitulation. --Peter Farago (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Land image is awful. --DrBat (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck, if nothing else Land images should be discouraged as all being probable copyvios. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the main image question

This still needs to be addressed, especially as Fraction is now hinting the Red Queen might not be Pryor (or the main Pryor). So what are the options and we'll then throw it open to opinions and get a consensus on this. (Emperor (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Coming back to this... Right now the "noimage" tag has been added. At best, there is no clear consensus on which image to move forward with. The article has 2 of the 3 looks in the body of the article (the one in the section is a problem since its a "She a part of this team" image... something the text handles fine) so a infobox image isn't needed per se.

If there is a consensus, then the images can be moved around at that point. But not before.

- J Greb (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a different version of the cover to #505 (the quality is higher and the bottom is no longer cropped off) to that section. --DrBat (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the image of Madelyne by Randy Green from cable 44..as it depicts her in Goblin Queen costume Image:MAdleyneCable44.jpg Justiceofthewar (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

2¢-ish...

• Is the consensus that the GQ version/image is the more recognisable iteration of the character?
• Year-wise, when was this published?
• Is there anything better than the worms eye view, turning away from the "camera" pose?

- J Greb (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thats what I inferred from the above discussion, that Madelyne was best known for her role as Goblin Queen during Inferno
• June 1997
• yes there were a few views, this was the best full bodyshot, but I can scan the others, here is one example Image:GoblinQueenCable50.jpg

-Justiceofthewar (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh Please NO to both new images. As Main-Image portraits of a character, both are kind of subpar and substandard as comic-book art.

Maybe after nearly two years without a fully accepted decision, the consensus might be inferred that the article works ok without having a Main Image, which seems kind of appropriate considering the messy character history and treatment. — 74.96.80.78 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes it sub-standard..only your opinion..this is what infuriates me about this discussion...everybody is just basing views on their opinions I don't see why a character as important as Madelyne has to be the only x-character without a main image..I would be happy with ANYthing at this point..really. Basically any image of Maddie in a black leather costume would work for this page..she wore black leather as Goblin Queen, Black Rook, and Red Queen. Moreover, she is a fictional character, she doesn't really exist, so people taking pics down because of storyline retcons is silly (that "isn't Maddie"..well it used to be before some writer decided to change her origin or history) tomorrow some comic could come out and Madelyne could have an entirely different origin Justiceofthewar (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

New Suggestion

I'm going to suggest this image:

Briefly, here's why I think it's a good compromise between the options which have been discussed previously:

1. It comes from a chronological period where the character is at an ambiguous point between her civillian existence and her later (and more infamous) "Goblin Queen" persona.
2. It is dark and moody, but not overtly villainous - effectively foreshadowing later character developments while still grounded in the less melodramatic origins of the character.
3. It is by Marc Silvestri, one of the three artists (along with Paul Smith and John Romita Jr.) principally associated with the character during her first, and most notable, incarnation in X-canon.
4. Despite being from a dialogue-heavy panel, it stands on its own as a really excellent piece of comics art.

--Peter Farago (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like it. We only see her face, which is obscured by shadow and covers her mouth. --DrBat (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that's an advantage in this case, since it presents an image that is nomcommital between her civillian and villainous identities. Any image that did show her costume would have to pick one or the other, which has been the source of issues with this infobox image. As for the obscured mouth, I think it's symbolically potent. --Peter Farago

It is a poor image - if this is for the infobox it is pretty much ruled out on a number of grounds (the main one being it has to be the whole figure). I'd also not think it is suitable for the body of the article - it only shows part of her face and all the word balloons make it seem a poor pick. If you have the comic to hand and are scanning in images from it then there surely has to be a far superior one to that. So a strong "no" from me to using that image anywhere. (Emperor (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

Finding a panel not defaced by dialogue is nigh-impossible in a Claremont comic, but I'll see what I can turn up. Can you tell me why the infobox image needs to be the full figure? That seems annoyingly rigid and, as already mentioned, is problematic in this case. --Peter Farago

A partial mugshot just isn't going to cut it. As for why, see WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE for what is aimed at. - J Greb (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not just that it has a lot of word balloons on the page it is a picture of her eyes and nose so is a poor choice for identifying a character. (Emperor (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

I hope something can be done about her not having a main image. She's too important of a character not to have one. It makes the entire page look tacky. She just had a recent stint in Uncanny X-men as the Red Queen. There were a few images of her released with goblins in the background that should work as her main image. I don't see why they were taken down. Floetry Spades (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Publication history

Just created the section using scraps of info already on the page: didn't really add anything but a start in the right direction: i know maddie's got A LOT of 'behind the scenes' stories. Es-won (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently some people feel that Claremont's plans for the character and their very famous upheaval don't belong in the publication history, but then i ask, what does? Lets have some consensus here, rather than retroactive undo's, shall we? In the meantime, I have recreated the (i feel, unneccessary) "Creator's commentary" section. Es-won (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is necessary to have details of publication and character development and the publication history is a good place for it to go. We should try and avoid peacock terms like "acclaimed" (which might be OK in the reception section on the title with suitable references but gets tricky in contexts like this). (Emperor (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

I understand, but I'm not using "acclaimed" to blow smoke up someone's ass, I'm trying to convey that the 11-issue run or whatever by Claremont and Smith had a lot of shit happening in it, specifically the introduction and marriage of Madelyne Pryor, which would form the character's status quo for the next 3 years. .... But okay, removal of peacock terms aside, Claremont's opinion in itself, is that okay? Es-won (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Line within "Publication History."

All of the links within this line: "Marvel attempted to address these problems through a retcon, in the 1989 Inferno crossover (co-scripted by Louise Simonson, with Claremont), where Madelyne is revealed to be a clone of Jean Grey, created by Mr. Sinister to produce a child with Scott Summers, and corrupted by her anger and demonic influence into the Goblin Queen, leading to her elimination — editorial and story decisions which have all added only further controversy towards Marvel ever since." appear to me to be a really obvious editorialization and do not fit in the current style of Wikipedia. It reads more like something from TV Tropes and doesn't look professional or encyclopedic. I would honestly just delete the links and leave in one link for the word "retcon" that would link to the page explaining retroactive continuity. At the very least, each of the links should only be the length of a single word or two word phrase and not comprise entire sentences. I'm going to change it myself, but I have a feeling it will just get reverted. Even if you do revert it, please consider the opinion I'm presenting here and come up with a more professional presentation of your own in how to present this information to the reader. 72.188.120.12 (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, I noticed that line literally just cites TVTropes.org. I'm pretty sure that's not a valid citation for anything on Wikipedia (other than literally articles about TVTropes.org) so I deleted the citations and removed the uncited editorialization line near the end. While I agree that this is the type of decision that has caused people to be critical of Marvel and how it handles female characters, that kind of thing has to have a real citation from a real source, not TV Tropes. 72.188.120.12 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madelyne Pryor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080223175441/http://www.seriejournalen.dk/tegneserie_indhold.asp?art=&ID=32 to http://www.seriejournalen.dk/tegneserie_indhold.asp?art=&ID=32

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)